RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea.

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

Antiproton Catalyzed Micro Fusion (ACMF) engines ARE fusion engines, but the
fusion reaction is catalyzed by anti matter. The ISP and thrust figures are
based on a lower overall weight and greater efficiency than a "conventional"
fusion engine. I emphasized conventional, because there are no conventional
fusion engines, so comparison is automatically suspect!

Nevertheless, the performance figures given are based on the ACMF prototype,
which DOES exist, and currently accepted figures for a theoretical fusion
engine. How accurate those theoretical figures are is anybody's guess.

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:19 PM
> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca
> Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea.
>
>
>
> >Current anti-matter storage vessels are called Penning
> Traps. They are
> >about
> >the size of a small hot water heater. They are transportable
> and can carry
> >sufficient numbers of anti-protons for research and medical
> usage. Note
> >that
> >these store only anti-particles, anti-protons to be exact.
>
> Well thats all you want.  Anti atoms are nutrally charged,
> which makes thm
> far easier to handel.
>
>
>
> ==
> >At the moment, the front runners in  the deep space reaction
> engine market
> >appear to be VASIMR and ACMF. VASIMR is basically a
> microwave pumped plasma
> >engine, ACMF stands for Anti-proton Catalyzed Micro Fusion.
> True fusion
> >rockets will probably never be used, the performance stats
> for ACMF are
> >better than the theoretical performance of fusion engines if
> we ever figure
> >out how to make one. It is expected that ACMF will lead to
> development
> >of a
> >true anti-matter drive in a few decades.
>
> How can a ACMF motor have significantly more power then a
> pure fusion drive,
> given the bulk of th power is from the fusion engine?
>
> Also fusion engines aren't a big problem.  They ae far easier
> to make then
> fusion power reactors.
>
>
>
> >
> >Lee Parker